AI and the Corporate Capture of Knowledge

BIAS: Center
RELIABILITY: Low

Political Bias Rating

This rating indicates the source’s editorial stance on the political spectrum, based on analysis from Media Bias/Fact Check, AllSides, and Ad Fontes Media.

Far Left / Left: Progressive editorial perspective
Lean Left: Slightly progressive tendency
Center: Balanced, minimal editorial slant
Lean Right: Slightly conservative tendency
Right / Far Right: Conservative editorial perspective

Current source: Center. Stories with cross-spectrum coverage receive elevated prominence.

Reliability Rating

This rating measures the source’s factual accuracy, sourcing quality, and journalistic standards based on third-party fact-checking assessments.

Very High: Exceptional accuracy, rigorous sourcing
High: Strong factual reporting, minor issues rare
Mixed: Generally accurate but occasional concerns
Low: Frequent errors or misleading content
Very Low: Unreliable, significant factual issues

Current source: Low. Higher reliability sources receive elevated weighting in story prioritization.

Schneier on Security
14:44Z

More than a decade after Aaron Swartz’s death , the United States is still living inside the contradiction that destroyed him. Swartz believed that knowledge, especially publicly funded knowledge, should be freely accessible. Acting on that, he downloaded thousands of academic articles from the JSTOR archive with the intention of making them publicly available.

For this, the federal government charged him with a felony and threatened decades in prison. After two years of prosecutorial pressure, Swartz died by suicide on Jan. 11, 2013.

The still-unresolved questions raised by his case have resurfaced in today’s debates over artificial intelligence, copyright and the ultimate control of knowledge. At the time of Swartz’s prosecution, vast amounts of research were funded by taxpayers, conduct

Continue reading at the original source

Read Full Article at Schneier on Security →